When the Utah Board of Vocational Education meets in Salt Lake City Dec. 16 it plans to consider a modified policy on general education for technical colleges. The proposed policy -. presented by State Superintendent Walter D. Talbot to the state board in September – appears to have some good points. But the Herald joins in the concem that it goes too far in limiting the scope of general education classes at technical colleges. , Such concern has been expressed by representatives of the administration, faculty, and students at Utah Technical College at Provo. State legislators from Utah County also have shown concern. 1n behalf of all 14 of them, State Sen. Robert O. Bowen presented a statement at the board’s St. George meeting Nov. 11, supporting the technical-general education balance currently in effect and opposing the newlyproposed concept. The law provides that vocational education comprise not less than 75 per cent of the curriculum. Utah Tech at Provo subscribes fully to this concept, and its present offering comprises 81 per cent vocational courses, about 4 per cent related courses, and 15 per cent general courses. The crux of the issue seems to be in interpretation of the 1967 amendment to Utah law goveming technical colleges. In his interpretation, Supt. Talbot seeks to bold the technical colleges at Provo and Salt Lake quite rigidly to the vocational technical concept, with courses of a general nature limited to those directly related and necessary in vocational fields chosen by the students. Thus, a student, upon enrolling, pretty much would have to commit himself to a major, something many simply are not ready to do. On the other hand, the feeling of those opposing the superintendent’s view is that the amendments purpose was to upgrade technical colleges, allow them to confer associate degrees, and thereby make credit for appropriate courses eligible for transfer to four-year colleges. A spokesman for Utah Tech says that in the main, the only credits transferable without question are in general education courses. Credits for strictlytechnical and related courses aren’t usually accepted. Senator Bowen, in the statement in behalf of the county’s legislators, said; “We believe the technical colleges, especially the one at Provo, are not only operating within the spirit of the law. but within the letter of the law.” The statement further asserted that general education progams “exist to enhance and support skills programs.” Former State Senator Richard A. Call of Provo, one of the sponsors of Senate Bill 234 (the 1967 amendment) has told the vocational education board it was his intent that the bill provide opportunity for the technical colleges to expand and broaden their offerings beyond strictly vocational training, and that the tradesman needs to have general education courses which will help him balance his life and increase his usefulness as a citizen. As the Herald sees it, the proposed narrower concept of limiting general education courses to vocation-related classes would be a step backward. Adding to reasons mentioned above: Broad population growth is forecast for this area. Post high school education with emphasis on vocational training will be in demand. Many cannot afford to attend four-year universities. BYU, the local university, has a ceiling on enrollment. The junior colleges will be needed for their own vital roles – and should be supported, of course. The state is committed to completing the large Orem campus of Utah Technical College which contemplates substantially – increased enrollment. But a narrower concept of course offerings, as proposed, would have a tendency to curtail enrollment growth rather than boost it. We assume general education courses – and technical courses too – should be subject to continual evaluation and screening. But we urge a long, hard look at any proposed policy that would significantly reduce the general education offering. And if the state law on the subject needs clarification, maybe this should be considered at the 1977 session of the Utah legislature.